Measuring and Mitigating Post-Hoc Rationalization in Reverse Chain-of-Thought Generation
Guangyue Peng, Zongchao Chen, Wen Luo, Yuntao Wen, Wei Li, Ruixiang Feng, Ran Le, Chen Yang, Zhenwei An, Yang Song, Tao Zhang, Houfeng Wang
Abstract
Reverse Chain-of-Thought Generation (RCG) synthesizes reasoning traces from query-answer pairs, but it risks producing post-hoc rationalizations: when models can see the answer during generation, the answer serves as a cognitive anchor that shapes the entire explanation. We formalize this phenomenon through a three-level measurement hierarchy: lexical, entropic, and probabilistic anchoring, which capture surface artifacts, entropy dynamics, and latent answer dependence, respectively. We analyze semantic suppression, the intuitive mitigation strategy that instructs models to ignore the answer, and find that it is counterproductive: while it reduces lexical overlap, it paradoxically increases entropic and probabilistic anchoring. We attribute this failure to active monitoring of the forbidden answer, which inadvertently deepens dependence on it. To break this cycle, we propose Structural Skeleton-guided Reasoning (SSR), whose core contribution is to replace answer suppression with structural decoupling: SSR first generates an answer-invariant functional skeleton and then uses it as a content-neutral target for full trace generation. Experiments across open-ended reasoning benchmarks show that SSR consistently mitigates anchoring, and that Distilled SSR (SSR-D), a distillation variant that internalizes skeleton-guided reasoning from teacher-generated traces, achieves up to 10% improvement over suppression baselines while mitigating out-of-distribution (OOD) degradation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on23
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language ModelsShunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,068 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought PromptingMiles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, Samuel R. BowmanNeurIPS 2023 · 1,792 citations
Related papers
- Reasoning Scaffolding: Distilling the Flow of Thought from LLMsXiangyu Wen, Junhua Huang, Zeju Li, Min Li et al.ICLR 2026 · 7 citations
- Do LLMs Encode Functional Importance of Reasoning Tokens ?Janvijay Singh, Dilek Hakkani-TürACL 2026 · 3 citations
- Efficient Reasoning for Large Reasoning Language Models via Certainty-Guided Reflection SuppressionJiameng Huang, Baijiong Lin, Guhao Feng, Jierun Chen et al.AAAI 2026 · 21 citations
- From Reasoning to Answer: Empirical, Attention-Based and Mechanistic Insights into Distilled DeepSeek R1 ModelsJue Zhang, Qingwei Lin, Saravan Rajmohan, Dongmei ZhangEMNLP 2025
- SPOT: Span-level Pause-of-Thought for Efficient and Interpretable Latent Reasoning in Large Language ModelsYunlong Chu, Minglai Shao, Yuhang Liu, Bing Hao et al.KDD 2026 · 2 citations
